Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Google, told by Bush to not bid on bandwith. Now that

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-22-11 11:55 AM
Original message
Google, told by Bush to not bid on bandwith. Now that
Bandwidth is being held off the market so carriers can charge us more and impose bandwidth caps.

http://www.cringely.com/2011/07/700-mhz-opportunity-down-the-toilet-no-make-that-stolen/

Remember how that freed-up spectrum was up for auction and Google made loud noises about bidding. I even predicted that they would bid, because that’s what I was hearing from inside the Googleplex. Google wanted to set up a national wireless network to rival anything from Verizon or AT&T. Only Google didn’t follow-through on its threat to bid and the frequencies were cherry-picked, instead, primarily by the big wireless incumbent carriers who have for the most part done little with them.

They bought the spectrum primarily to keep it out of play, to keep a viable competitor from emerging.

That decision not to bid back in 2008 seemed very short-sighted of Google. But now I hear from people who were inside the FCC at the time that Google was privately told by the Bush Administration not to bid.

What if Google had defied this government nudge? I guess the threat was they’d have it taken from them anyway through some regulatory action or legal challenge. But had Google succeeded, we wouldn’t be seeing bandwidth caps being imposed today on wireless data plans. And wireless data would be cheaper everywhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
HopeHoops Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-22-11 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
1. Dude, we had some SERIOUS bandwidth in the 70's.
Most of them were leather with multiple snaps, but they were definitely wide.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-22-11 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. You can't ride a bicycle in bell bottoms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HopeHoops Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-22-11 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Oh, you can - once.
And we didn't have helmets back then!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-22-11 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. We did, but they were what we called "leather hairnets."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC